This is a collection of random thoughts on the U.S. Supreme Court’s hearings on whether to deconstruct marriage and refashion it in accordance with the desires of homosexuals.

Some of my thoughts are in response to comments made by U.S. Supreme Court Justices, some are in response to comments made by the attorneys arguing for the deconstruction of marriage, and some are in response to commentary floating about the Internet. Following my random thoughts is a short list of questions that I wish SCOTUS had asked.

Thoughts

The Left says two men or two women who are raising children should be able to marry. Such a claim suggests that it is the presence of children that renders the relationship between their caretakers a marriage. Clearly, however, there are many adults who are raising children whose relationships do not constitute a marital-type of relationship. Few people are currently arguing, for example, that two brothers who love each other, express that love erotically, and are raising children together should be able to legally marry.

Law professor Ilya Somin writing for the Volokh Conspiracy blog  dismisses the ontological differences between men and women that homosexuals themselves affirm:

In addition to discriminating on their face, laws banning same-sex marriage are also in part based on sweeping (and often empirically dubious) generalizations about the abilities and social roles of men and women….

When homosexual men and women assert that they are erotically and romantically attracted only to members of their own sex, they are acknowledging that men and women are substantively and significantly different and that those differences are not merely anatomical. Is it so irrational then to argue that these substantive differences inform parenting?

Chief Justice John Roberts asked a pointed question that reflects the “sex discrimination theory” endorsed by Professor Somin:

[I]f Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?

This theory errs in that it presumes what it has not proved, which is that the sex of marriage partners is irrelevant to marriage. It simply presumes that sexual complementarity is not an essential constituent feature of marriage. It would be like saying, “12-year-old Sue loves 30-year-old Joe, and 27-year-old Ann loves 30-year-old Joe. Ann can marry Joe, and Sue can’t. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of age discrimination?”

It isn’t a straightforward question of age discrimination because in the case of the unique institution of marriage, the age of partners is integral.

Similarly, in the case of the unique institution of marriage, sexual differentiation is integral. Without it, a union ceases to be, in reality, marital.

Somin and many other marriage deconstruction advocates appeal to laws banning interracial marriages as apt analogies. But laws banning interracial marriages were wrong for the same reason laws permitting same-sex “marriages” are wrong: Both depend on wrong assumptions about the intrinsic nature of marriage. If marriage has a nature central to which is sexual differentiation, then marriage laws that recognize that ontological nature do not reflect invidious discrimination.

Moreover, anti-miscegenation laws, like marriage-deconstruction laws, embodied other serious ontological errors. Laws banning interracial marriage wrongly assumed that blacks and whites have different natures, while laws permitting same-sex “marriage” wrongly assume that men and women have identical natures.

Meanwhile a twittering tweeter over on SCOTUSblog.com seemed inordinately impressed with this statement from Mary Bonauto, one of the attorney’s arguing for marriage deconstruction:

In terms of the question of who decides, it’s not about the court versus the states. It’s about the individual making the choice to marry and with whom to marry, or the government.

Seriously, an attorney is arguing that every individual should be able to decide what the government should recognize as a marriage. If that’s the case, then current marriage criteria regarding blood kinship and numbers of partners need to be jettisoned as well.

Justice Anthony Kennedy oddly views the role of both the legislative and judicial branches of government as dignity-dispensing. Here’s yet another remarkable Kennedy statement:

I thought [dignity-bestowing] was the whole purpose of marriage.  It bestows dignity on both man and woman in a traditional marriage.  It’s dignity-bestowing, and these parties say they want to have that, that same ennoblement.

The whole purpose of marriage is to bestow dignity on sexually differentiated marital unions? Many Americans thought the inclusion of sexual differentiation in the legal definition of marriage was a recognition of the intrinsic nature of marriage and served to tie mothers and fathers to each other and to any children that may result from their sexual union, which in turn serves to protect the inherent needs and rights of children, which in turn serves the public good. The bestowal of dignity is decidedly not the “whole purpose of” the legal recognition of what marriage is, though it may be a beneficial consequence. In Kennedy’s alternate universe, which other relationship configurations merit the bestowal of dignity through access to legal marriage?  Incestuous unions? Incestuous homosexual unions? Polyamorous unions?

Even “dignity-bestowing” is largely a thing of the past. Large swaths of the population think no more of legal marriage than they do of co-habitation. But even prior to the “sexual revolution” that is responsible in large measure for the low regard with which the public holds marriage, the whole purpose of marriage never was solely or centrally to “bestow dignity” and “ennoblement” on man-woman unions.

Kennedy waxed foolish again:

Same-sex couples say…We know we can’t procreate, but we want the other attributes of it in order to show that we, too, have a dignity that can be fulfilled.

First, the government is involved in marriage precisely because the sexual union of one man and one woman is the type of union that naturally produces children. This is not to say that the government has any interest in ascertaining fertility or compelling procreation. But it is to say that if humans did not procreate through heterosexual intercourse, the government would have zero interest in recognizing and regulating marriage. If humans reproduced asexually, there would be no more reason for the government to be involved with marriage than there is for the government to be involved with recognizing and regulating platonic friendships.

Second, Kennedy inadvertently gets to the heart of the mission of homosexuals to reinvent marriage in their own image when he says that they want “the other attributes of marriage” in the hope that the dignity imputed to marriage will be imputed to their unions. But the dignity that inheres marriage derives from its nature—not the word “marriage” or the license. Nonetheless,  homosexuals seek to obliterate in law and the public consciousness all ontological distinctions between heterosexual marriage and homoerotic non-marriage.

Questions I wish the Supreme Court had asked:

What is marriage?

Does marriage have a nature that the government merely recognizes and regulates, or is it wholly a social construction with no intrinsic features?

If it has a nature, what are its essential, intrinsic features without which marriage ceases to be marriage?

Why should the criterion regarding sexual differentiation be jettisoned from the legal definition but the criterion regarding numbers of partners be retained?

What is the government’s interest in marriage?

Why does the government not recognize or regulate the union of those in platonic friendships as marriages?

What constitutes homosexuality?

Should those who experience other conditions similarly constituted be allowed to redefine marriage in accordance with their desires?

Let’s pray that wisdom informs SCOTUS’ ultimate decision in June.

The Illinois Family Institute is completely dependent on the voluntary contributions of individuals just like you.  Without you, we would be unable to fight the radical agenda being pushed by the godless Left.

To make a credit card donation over the phone, call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.

Pastors Say Marriage Must Be Preserved for Sake of Children

Written by Stoyan Zaimov

Religious leaders from a wide array of denominations have released a joint statement reaffirming their support for traditional marriage ahead of the Supreme Court’s hearing of oral arguments on Tuesday. The Christian leaders have said that reaffirming marriage as being between one man and one woman is vital for protecting children and offering them both a father and a mother.

“As religious leaders from various faith communities, we acknowledge that marriage is the foundation of the family where children are raised by a mother and a father together,” the statement reads, in part.

The Rev. Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, the Most Rev. Foley Beach, the archbishop and Primate of the Anglican Church in North America, and Most Rev. Salvatore J. Cordileone, the archbishop of San Francisco and chairman of the USCCB Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, are just some of the notable names that have signed the letter.

On April 28, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether states have the right to determine their own definition of marriage, or whether the Constitution requires all 50 states to make same-sex marriage legal.

Presently 36 states, as well as the District of Colombia, have legalized same-sex marriage, while 13 states have bans on the practice.

The joint letter states that defending the traditional definition of marriage is about the well-being of children, and insists that every child has the right to both a mother and a father.

“Marriage as the union of a man and a woman is the only institution that encourages and safeguards the connection between children and their mother and father,” the religious leaders said.

“Although this connection cannot always be realized and sustained — and many single parents, for example, are heroic in their efforts to raise their children — it is in the best interests of the state to encourage and uphold the family founded on marriage and to afford the union of husband and wife unique legal protection and reinforcement.”

They add that there are “serious consequences” to redefining marriage also for religious freedom, as it would require same-sex relationships to be treated as the same as heterosexual unions.

“No person or community, including religious organizations and individuals of faith, should be forced to accept this redefinition. For many people, accepting a redefinition of marriage would be to act against their conscience and to deny their religious beliefs and moral convictions,” the statement continued.

“Government should protect the rights of those with differing views of marriage to express their beliefs and convictions without fear of intimidation, marginalization or unwarranted charges that their values imply hostility, animosity, or hatred of others.”

This article was originally posted at the ChristianPost.com website.

A traditional values leader is exposing the Girl Scouts for its continued move toward far-left causes.

The latest announcement, says Linda Harvey of Mission America, is that little boys from kindergarten through high school can join the Girl Scouts, if the boy considers himself a girl.

“In other words, he calls the shots,” Harvey says of young males. “He is the one that determines the rights and privacy of authentic girls.”

Regarding transgender youth, the website for the Scouts states that if a boy is recognized as living as a girl, “then Girl Scouts is an organization that can serve her in a setting that is both emotionally and physically safe.”

The Girl Scouts began the move by pushing liberal sex education, although some local groups refuse to follow along, and then the Scouts decided the girls could define God as they wish – or deny Him.

OneNewsNow reported last year that the CEO of the Girl Scouts was trying to deflect ties to Planned Parenthood but pro-family watchdog groups, already tracking the association, reported otherwise.

The Girl Scouts were the targets of a “cookie boycott” last year after the group was accused of trumpeing Wendy Davis, the pro-abortion Democrat who ran for Texas governor.

In the latest news, a chapter is being organized for homosexual and lesbian families at the Utah Pride Center.

What the Girl Scouts are advocating, says Harvey, is “anything that is anti-Christian, and anything that would dishonor girls.”

Meanwhile, a pro-family rival organization to the Girl Scouts, American Heritage Girls, is celebrating 20 years this year.

This article was originally posted at the OneNewsNow.com website.

The Left believes minors should be able to access medical help in rejecting their unchosen, unwanted physical embodiment but then wants to prohibit minors from accessing medical help in rejecting their unchosen, unwanted same-sex attraction. So, how do “LGBTQIAAP” activists reconcile yet another of their incoherent propositions and ironies? They just make up some novel terms that embody queer (pun intended) ideas.

Every time the incoherence or fallaciousness of their arguments is exposed, they frantically invent a new theory and a new term to advance their irrational agenda. Just keep dangling dazzling neologisms in front of the public’s blurry eyes and they won’t notice the idiocy and perversion that is destroying the lives of children while serving the desires of adults.

For example, the Left invented the politically useful term “gender identity,” which is the sex with which one identifies and with which one is supposedly born. In this queer ontological universe “gender identity” has no intrinsic relation to physical embodiment. So, sometimes one’s “gender identity” accidentally aligns with physical embodiment, and sometimes it doesn’t. When people’s “gender identity” and physical embodiment align, they are deemed “cisgender”—yes, another novel rhetorical construction that embodies very queer ideas.

In a more rational, less cowardly culture, we would just say that “gender identity” denotes the disordered desire to be the opposite sex. We would call it gender confusion or Gender Identity Disorder or Gender Dysphoria. Oh, wait, we tried that, but it didn’t serve the desires and social and political goals of the gender confused among us.

So moving on, if your “gender identity” does not align with your objective biological sex, you are not cisgender or a ciswoman or a cisman, you are transgender, a trans-man (that is, an actual woman) or a trans-woman (that is, an actual man).  In this new queer vernacular I, for example, am a ciswoman. Bruce Jenner is trans-woman.

Now stay with me.

When Leftists argue that minors should be able to access medical help in rejecting their physical embodiment, they won’t state it exactly like that, because that would expose their hypocrisy and incoherence. Instead, they employ their novel terms to explain their queer ideology. They will say trans-minors are not seeking to change anything. They’re seeking to “align” their bodies with their inherent, immutable “gender identity,” which is either a trans-man (that is, an actual woman) or trans-woman (that is, an actual man). And when trans-people have healthy body parts amputated, they’re no longer having either “sex change surgery” or  “sex reassignment surgery.” They’re now having “gender confirmation surgery.” This new term diverts the public’s attention from the truth that no one can change his or her sex. And it serves to reinforce the belief that subjective feelings are the ultimate arbiter of reality. In the Gnostic world of trans-activism, healthy, objective, material bodies must submit.

Well, two can play this foolish game.

Oh, and just to forewarn you, there are two other novel terms embodying queer ideas peeking over the rainbow-hued horizon: GSM and GSRM. GSM means Gender and Sexual Minorities, and GSRM means Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities. The Left needed to invent these because they were being mocked for the silliness of LGBTQIAAP.  You gotta give it to the Left. They are a rhetorically nimble and imaginative bunch.

Right now, liberals in Springfield do not have the votes to pass HB 217–the anti-autonomy, anti-choice Reparative Therapy Prohibition Act–even though they control both houses of the legislature. The lack of support for this bill is something liberals and their water-carriers in the mainstream press don’t share with the public.

But “LGBTQIAAP” activists are working like trans-madmen to garner support for this bill. Illinoisans need to match and exceed their fervor and tenacity in order to retain the right of minors to access medical help in aligning their unchosen, unwanted sexual desires with their inherent, immutable “sexual orientation identities” or in constructing identities that do not affirm unchosen, unwanted same-sex attraction.

TAKE ACTION: CLICK HERE to contact your state representative and state senator urge them to protect the rights of minors to seek help for their unwanted attractions. Urge a “No” vote on HB 217 and SB 111.

Join Us on May 7th

“Islam in America: A Christian Perspective”
with Dr. Erwin Lutzer

CLICK HERE for Details

Written by Dawn Stefanowicz

I am one of six adult children of gay parents who recently filed amicus briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to respect the authority of citizens to keep the original definition of marriage: a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, so that children may know and may be raised by their biological parents. I also live in Canada, where same-sex marriage was federally mandated in 2005.

I am the daughter of a gay father who died of AIDS. I described my experiences in my book: Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting. Over fifty adult children who were raised by LGBT parents have communicated with me and share my concerns about same-sex marriage and parenting. Many of us struggle with our own sexuality and sense of gender because of the influences in our household environments growing up.

We have great compassion for people who struggle with their sexuality and gender identity—not animosity. And we love our parents. Yet, when we go public with our stories, we often face ostracism, silencing, and threats.

I want to warn America to expect severe erosion of First Amendment freedoms if the U.S.Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage. The consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now, and they are truly Orwellian in nature and scope.

Canada’s Lessons

In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.

Why do police prosecute speech under the guise of eliminating “hate speech” when there are existing legal remedies and criminal protections against slander, defamation, threats, and assault that equally apply to all Americans? Hate-crime-like policies using the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” create unequal protections in law, whereby protected groups receive more legal protection than other groups.

Having witnessed how mob hysteria in Indiana caused the legislature to back-track on a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, many Americans are beginning to understand that some activists on the Left want to usher in state control over every institution and freedom. In this scheme, personal autonomy and freedom of expression become nothing more than pipe dreams, and children become commodified.

Children are not commodities that can be justifiably severed from their natural parentage and traded between unrelated adults. Children in same-sex households will often deny their grief and pretend they don’t miss a biological parent, feeling pressured to speak positively due to the politics surrounding LGBT households. However, when children lose either of their biological parents because of death, divorce, adoption, or artificial reproductive technology, they experience a painful void. It is the same for us when our gay parent brings his or her same-sex partner(s) into our lives. Their partner(s) can never replace our missing biological parent.

The State as Ultimate Arbiter of Parenthood

Over and over, we are told that “permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.” That is a lie.

When same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada in 2005, parenting was immediately redefined. Canada’s gay marriage law, Bill C-38, included a provision to erase the term “natural parent” and replace it across the board with gender-neutral “legal parent” in federal law. Now all children only have “legal parents,” as defined by the state. By legally erasing biological parenthood in this way, the state ignores children’s foremost right: their immutable, intrinsic yearning to know and be raised by their own biological parents.

Mothers and fathers bring unique and complementary gifts to their children. Contrary to the logic of same-sex marriage, the gender of parents matters for the healthy development of children. We know, for example, that the majority of incarcerated men did not have their fathers in the home. Fathers by their nature secure identity, instill direction, provide discipline, boundaries, and risk-taking adventures, and set lifelong examples for children. But fathers cannot nurture children in the womb or give birth to and breast-feed babies. Mothers nurture children in unique and beneficial ways that cannot be duplicated by fathers.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that men and women are anatomically, biologically, physiologically, psychologically, hormonally, and neurologically different from each other. These unique differences provide lifelong benefits to children that cannot be duplicated by same-gender “legal” parents acting out different gender roles or attempting to substitute for the missing male or female role model in the home.

In effect, same-sex marriage not only deprives children of their own rights to natural parentage, it gives the state the power to override the autonomy of biological parents, which means parental rights are usurped by the government.

Hate Tribunals Are Coming

In Canada, it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training.

Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under “sexual orientation.” It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.

The plaintiff making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Not so the defendant. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought forth the complaint.

If your beliefs, values, and political opinions are different from the state’s, you risk losing your professional license, job, or business, and even your children. Look no further than the Lev Tahor Sect, an Orthodox Jewish sect. Many members, who had been involved in a bitter custody battle with child protection services, began leaving Chatham, Ontario, for Guatemala in March 2014, to escape prosecution for their religious faith, which conflicted with the Province’s guidelines for religious education. Of the two hundred sect members, only half a dozen families remain in Chatham.

Parents can expect state interference when it comes to moral values, parenting, and education—and not just in school. The state has access into your home to supervise you as the parent, to judge your suitability. And if the state doesn’t like what you are teaching your children, the state will attempt to remove them from your home.

Teachers cannot make comments in their social networks, write letters to editors, publicly debate, or vote according to their own conscience on their own time. They can be disciplined or lose any chance of tenure. They can be required at a bureaucrat’s whim to take re-education classes or sensitivity training, or be fired for thinking politically incorrect thoughts.

When same-sex marriage was created in Canada, gender-neutral language became legally mandated. Newspeak proclaims that it is discriminatory to assume a human being is male or female, or heterosexual. So, to be inclusive, special non-gender-specific language is being used in media, government, workplaces, and especially schools to avoid appearing ignorant, homophobic, or discriminatory. A special curriculum is being used in many schools to teach students how to use proper gender-neutral language. Unbeknownst to many parents, use of gender terms to describe husband and wife, father and mother, Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, and “he” and “she” is being steadily eradicated in Canadian schools.

Which Is More Important: Sexual Autonomy or the First Amendment?

Recently, an American professor who was anonymously interviewed for theAmerican Conservative questioned whether sexual autonomy is going to cost you your freedoms: “We are now at the point, he said, at which it is legitimate to ask if sexual autonomy is more important than the First Amendment?”

Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian citizens were supposed to have been guaranteed: (1) freedom of conscience and religion; (2) freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (3) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (4) freedom of association. In reality, all of these freedoms have been curtailed with the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Wedding planners, rental halls, bed and breakfast owners, florists, photographers, and bakers have already seen their freedoms eroded, conscience rights ignored, and religious freedoms trampled in Canada. But this is not just about the wedding industry. Anybody who owns a business may not legally permit his or her conscience to inform business practices or decisions if those decisions are not in line with the tribunals’ decisions and the government’s sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination laws. In the end, this means that the state basically dictates whether and how citizens may express themselves.

Freedom to assemble and speak freely about man-woman marriage, family, and sexuality is now restricted. Most faith communities have become “politically correct” to avoid fines and loss of charitable status. Canadian media are restricted by the Canadian Radio, Television, and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which is similar to the FCC. If the media air anything considered discriminatory, broadcasting licenses can be revoked, and “human rights bodies” can charge fines and restrict future airings.

An example of legally curtailed speech regarding homosexuality in Canada involves the case of Bill Whatcott, who was arrested for hate speech in April 2014 after distributing pamphlets that were critical of homosexuality. Whether or not you agree with what he says, you should be aghast at this state-sanctioned gagging. Books, DVDs, and other materials can also be confiscatedat the Canadian border if the materials are deemed “hateful.”

Americans need to prepare for the same sort of surveillance-society in America if the Supreme Court rules to ban marriage as a male-female institution. It means that no matter what you believe, the government will be free to regulate your speech, your writing, your associations, and whether or not you may express your conscience. Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.

Dawn Stefanowicz is an internationally recognized speaker and author. She is a member of the Testimonial Committee of the International Children’s Rights Institute. Her book, Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting, is available at http://www.dawnstefanowicz.org. Dawn, a full-time licensed accountant, is married and has two teenaged children.

This article was originally posted at ThePublicDiscourse.com website.

The very notion of “gay marriage” is an artificial construct. It’s the aberrant byproduct of the sexual revolution, which, itself, was largely instigated by bug doctor turned “sexologist,” Alfred Kinsey.

Though married to a woman who took part in his many filmed “scientific” orgies, Kinsey was a promiscuous homosexual and sadomasochist. He managed to completely upend and twist the world’s perception of human sexuality in the 1950s and ’60s with his world famous “Kinsey Reports.”

While his “research” has been universally discredited and exposed as fraudulent, ideologically motivated and even criminal, it remains, nonetheless, the primary source behind today’s “sexual orientation science.”

For this reason, and many others, the novel notion of “gay marriage” sits atop a house of cards.

On April 28, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether to attempt, once and for all, the deconstruction and redefinition of the institution of marriage. The court will then hand down a decision by the end of June. In anticipation of this landmark case, civil rights law firm Liberty Counsel has submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court a friend of the court brief that reveals the criminally fraudulent foundation upon which the “marriage equality” Tower of Babel has been raised.

Among other things, the brief features the findings of Dr. Judith Reisman, the foremost expert on Kinsey’s pseudo-scientific cultural activism. Reisman has served as scientific consultant to four U.S. Department of Justice administrations, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). She is a visiting professor of law at Liberty University School of Law and works hand-in-hand with Liberty Counsel.

As the brief reveals, most people are completely unaware that during his tenure at Indiana University, Kinsey facilitated, with stopwatches and ledgers, the systematic sexual abuse of hundreds, if not thousands, of children and infants – all in the name of science.

Kinsey asserted that children are “sexual from birth.” He further concluded, based upon experiments he directed and documented in his infamous Table 34, that adult-child sex is harmless, even beneficial, and described child “orgasm” as “culminating in extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting. …” Many children suffered “excruciating pain,” he observed, “and [would] scream if movement [was] continued.” Some “[would] fight away from the [adult] partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax, although they derive[d] definite pleasure from the situation.”

It’s little wonder that Dr. Reisman identifies Kinsey as a “sexual psychopath.” These children were as young as 2 months old.

Kinsey’s research also determined that rape doesn’t really hurt women. In his 1953 volume “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female” at page 122, Kinsey wrote, “Among the 4,441 females [reporting rape] on whom we have data, there was only one clear cut case of injury … and very few instances of vaginal bleeding, which however, did not appear to do any appreciable damage.”

Kinsey claimed that, like himself, over 30 percent of men are homosexual (today’s legitimate research has established this figure to actually fall somewhere between 1-3 percent). There can be no doubt that, if he were alive today, Alfred Kinsey would be one of the loudest voices clamoring for the redefinition of marriage.

“For the past 67 years, scholars, lawyers and judges have undertaken fundamental societal transformation by embracing Alfred Kinsey’s statistically and scientifically fraudulent ‘data’ derived from serial child rapists, sex offenders, prisoners, prostitutes, pedophiles and pederasts,” notes the brief. “Now these same change agents, still covering up the fraudulent nature of the Kinsey ‘data,’ want this Court to utilize it to demolish the cornerstone of society, natural marriage.”

“Changing millennia of history must always be approached with trepidation,” the brief continues. “In this case, the change must be rejected outright not only because it is seeking to redefine something which cannot be redefined, but also because the proposed change is grounded in fraudulent ‘research’ based on skewed demographics and the sexual abuse of hundreds of infants and children.”

The brief pleads with the U.S. Supreme Court not to “erase millennia of human history and dismantle the granite cornerstone of society in favor of an experimental construct that is barely a decade old.” Instead, Liberty Counsel asserts, “This case presents the Court with the opportunity to affirm and preserve the unique, comprehensive union of a man and a woman, the foundational social institution upon which society was built and the future of the nation depends.”

In the past, the Supreme Court has upheld marriage as a foundational social institution that is necessarily defined as the union of one man and one woman:

• Marriage is “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).
• “An institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888).

“Older than the Constitution and the laws of any nation, marriage is not a creation of any government, but it is an obvious relationship between one man and one woman. Marriage is a natural bond that society or religion can only ‘solemnize,’” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel.

It is a tragic commentary on America’s moral freefall that the highest court in the land would consider, even for an instant, perverting the cornerstone institution of marriage to reflect the psychotic image and anti-social activism of a man who, himself, was a criminal pervert.

Illinois Family Institute is joining Liberty Counsel in calling Christians to unite in fasting and prayer for three days before the U.S. Supreme Court hears the case – on April 23, 24 and 25.

At this point, prayer alone may save marriage and keep, at bay, the wrath of a just and Holy God.

Read more about the Kinsey’s fraudulent research and cover up at Dr. Reisman’s website.

Whenever same-sex marriage is talked about in the news, it’s typically accompanied by glowing images and videos of couples happily celebrating their new right. It’s more rare that we hear from the other party most directly affected by the controversy—the children. But when we do hear from them, they often understandably give glowing reviews. But not always… there are other children whose stories are not being told, or when they are, they’re being silenced or even bullied.

Consider Katy Faust, a child raised by a lesbian couple, who suggested recently that redefining marriage necessarily includes redefining parenthood.

Now 38 years old, Faust loves both her mom, who got divorced, and the lesbian partner of her mother, who helped to raise her. But that doesn’t mean Katy’s neutral on the issue of same sex marriage.

Katy talked with me on “BreakPoint This Week” about her experience growing up in a same-sex household. And it’s an eye-opening interview. Please come to BreakPoint.org to listen to it.

Recently, Katy wrote a powerful open letter to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who’s widely considered to be the swing vote in the coming high court ruling on the issue. The letter, which was published in the journal Public Discourse and went viral, argues that the rights of children must trump the feelings of adults. She notes that in California’s Proposition 8 legal battle, Justice Kennedy agreed that the children living in households with gay partners must have a voice.

Well, Katy just thinks that all of them, not just those that are affirming, deserve that voice. “Children,” wrote Faust, “have a natural, fundamental right to the dual-gender influence of their biological parents. The adults in this scenario,” she writes, “satisfy their heart’s desires, while the child bears the most significant cost: missing out on one or more of her biological parents. Making policy that intentionally deprives children of their fundamental rights is something that we should not endorse, incentivize, or promote.”

In other words, natural marriage matters for everyone.

Indeed, as the Manhattan Declaration notes, “Vast human experience confirms that…where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits—the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live. Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves.”

And this is true even when society says otherwise.

Indeed, Faust recounts how she felt the pressure to go along. “I remember how many times,” she wrote, “I repeated my speech: ‘I’m so happy that my parents got divorced so that I could know all of you wonderful women’,” Then she continues, “I cringe when I think of it now, because it was a lie. My parents’ divorce has been the most traumatic event in my thirty-eight years of life. While I did love my mother’s partner and her friends, I would have traded every one of them to have my mom and my dad loving me under the same roof.”

As Faust notes, this isn’t just about being against same-sex marriage. It’s actually about being formarriage between one man and one woman because that’s the gift God gave humans for blessing and flourishing. My new book with Sean McDowell called “Same-Sex Marriage: A Thoughtful Approach to God’s Design for Marriage,” walks through this overwhelming evidence of the vital role that both a mom and a dad have in the life of their kids.

It’s a reality that Katy sees more fully now that she’s a mother herself. “Now that I am a parent,” she says, “I see clearly the beautiful differences my husband and I bring to our family… I see how important the role of their father is and how irreplaceable I am as their mother. … Neither of us is disposable.”

Sadly, same-sex marriage asserts, without any evidence, that mothers or fathers are disposable in the life of their children. Funny, but we never say that when there’s a divorce, an adoption, or a death.

To listen to this interview with Katy Faust, please come to BreakPoint.org, and click on “BreakPoint This Week.”

The Day of Silence, which is sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), fast approaches. This year it will take place in most public schools on Friday, April 17.

On this day, thousands of public high schools and increasing numbers of middle schools will allow students to remain silent throughout an entire day-even during instructional time-to promote GLSEN’s socio-political goals.

Parents must actively oppose this hijacking of the classroom for political purposes. Please join the national effort to restore to public education a proper understanding of the role of government-subsidized schools.

You can help de-politicize the learning environment by calling your child out of school if your child’s school allows students to remain silent during instructional time on the Day of Silence.

If students will be permitted to remain silent, parents can express their opposition most effectively by calling their children out of school on the Day of Silence and sending letters of explanation to their administrators, their children’s teachers, and all school board members. One reason this is effective is that most school districts lose money for each student absence.

School administrators err when they allow the classroom to be disrupted and politicized by granting students permission to remain silent throughout an entire day.

Visit www.doswalkout.net for complete information on opposing the Day of Silence.

TAKE ACTION

1. Call your local schools and ask whether they permit students or teachers to remain silent in the classroom on “Day of Silence.” IMPORTANT: Do not ask any administrator, school board member, or teacher if the school sponsors, endorses, or supports DOS. Schools do not technically sponsor the Day of Silence. Technically, it is students, often students in the gay-straight alliance, who sponsor it. Many administrators will tell you that they do not sponsor the DOS when, in fact, they do permit students and sometimes even teachers to remain silent during instructional time. Also ask administrators whether they permit teachers to create lesson plans to accommodate student silence.

2. Find out what date the event is planned for your school. (The national date in 2015 is Friday, April 17, but some schools observe DOS on a different date).

3. Inform the school of your intention to keep your children home on that date and explain why.

This alert was originally posted at the American Family Association website.

Only six of 54 Republican members of the U.S. Senate signed a pro-traditional marriage legal brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that was submitted on Friday. USA Today noted, “By contrast, 44 Democratic senators and 167 Democratic House members filed a brief last month urging the court to approve same-sex marriage. The brief included the full House and Senate [Democratic] leadership teams.”

These developments strongly suggest that while the homosexual movement remains solidly in control of the Democratic Party, the tactics of harassment and intimidation that we saw wielded against the religious freedom bill in Indiana last week are taking their toll on the Republican Party as a whole.

In the Indiana case, a conservative Republican governor, Mike Pence, abandoned the fight for religious freedom in the face of homosexual and corporate pressure.

It appears that more and more elite or establishment Republicans are simply deciding to give up on the fight for traditional values and marriage.

While this may seem politically expedient, this dramatic move to the left by the GOP could result in millions of pro-family conservatives deciding to abandon the Republican Party in 2016, a critical election year.

USA Today also noted that “…while some members of the 2012 Republican National Convention platform committee filed a brief against gay marriage Friday, it notably did not include GOP Chairman Reince Priebus.”

The Republican senators signing the brief included:

• U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas
• U.S. Senator Steve Daines of Montana
• U.S. Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma
• U.S. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma
• U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
• U.S. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina

Fifty-one members of the House of Representatives signed the brief. But U.S. House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) name was not on it.

Taking the lead for traditional marriage in the House was U.S. Representative Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), who not only signed the pro-marriage brief but has also introduced U.S. House Joint Resolution 32, the Marriage Protection Amendment, to amend the United States Constitution to protect marriage, family and children by defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The resolution has 33 co-sponsors and has been referred for action to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary.

Huelskamp is the only Member of Congress who has authored one of the 30 state constitutional amendments that prohibits homosexual marriage and polygamous marriage. In 2005, when he was a state senator, 71 percent of Kansans voted for the state constitutional amendment that he authored.

In reintroducing the federal marriage amendment, Huelskamp said, “In June 2013 the Supreme Court struck down section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, but upheld the right and responsibility of states to define marriage. Since then, though, numerous unelected lower court judges have construed the U.S. Constitution as suddenly demanding recognition of same sex ‘marriages,’ and they struck down state Marriage Amendments—including the Kansas Marriage Amendment—approved by tens of millions of voters and their elected representatives.”

However, on April 28 the U.S. Supreme Court will review the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which upholds marriage laws in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. A ruling is expected in June.

USA Today noted that scores of prominent Republicans last month joined a brief on the homosexual side filed by former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, a former lieutenant to Karl Rove who came out of the closet and announced in August of 2010 that he was a homosexual. He has since launched a “Project Right Side” to make the “conservative” case for gay marriage.

Big money Republican donors such as Paul Singer, David Koch, and Peter Thiel have either endorsed homosexual rights and same-sex marriage or funded the homosexual movement. Thiel is an open homosexual.

A libertarian group funded by the Koch brothers, the Cato Institute has been in the gay rights camp for many years and its chairman, Robert A. Levy, wrote a “moral and constitutional case for a right to gay marriage.”

Other signatories to the Mehlman brief included Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, U.S. Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk of Illinois, and former presidential candidates Rudolph Giuliani and Jon Huntsman.

The signers of this brief at the U.S. Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage were described as “300 veteran Republican lawmakers, operatives and consultants.” Some two dozen or so had worked for Mitt Romney for president.

One of the signatories, Mason Fink, who was the finance director of the Mitt Romney for president campaign, has signed on with a super PAC promoting former Florida Republican governor Jeb Bush for president. In another move signaling his alignment with the homosexual movement, Bush has reportedly picked Tim Miller, “one of the most prominent gay Republicans in Washington politics,” as his communications director.

A far-left media outlet known as Buzzfeed has described Bush as “2016’s Gay-Friendly Republican,” and says he has “stocked his inner circle with advisers who are vocal proponents of gay rights.”

But some conservative Christians are fighting back against the homosexual movement.

A brief to the court filed by Liberty Counsel notes that, in the past, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld marriage as “a foundational social institution that is necessarily defined as the union of one man and one woman.” It cites the case of Skinner v. Oklahoma, in which marriage was declared to be “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race,” and Maynard v. Hill, in which marriage was declared “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Liberty Counsel said the court is being asked to affirm a false notion of marriage based upon fraudulent data about homosexual activity in society. It said, “For the past 67 years, scholars, lawyers and judges have undertaken fundamental societal transformation by embracing Alfred Kinsey’s statistically and scientifically fraudulent ‘data’ derived from serial child rapists, sex offenders, prisoners, prostitutes, pedophiles and pederasts. Now these same change agents, still covering up the fraudulent nature of the Kinsey ‘data,’ want this Court to utilize it to demolish the cornerstone of society, natural marriage.”

The homosexual movement has long maintained that Kinsey validated changes in sexual behavior that were already taking place in society. In fact, however, the evidence uncovered by Dr. Judith Reisman shows that Kinsey deliberately exaggerated those changes in a fraudulent manner by using data from pedophiles and prisoners.

Commenting on the impact of the acceptance of the fraudulent Kinsey data, Accuracy in Media founder Reed Irvine noted, “Gradually over the years, acceptance of the Kinsey morality has grown to the point where premarital and extramarital sex raise no eyebrows, where, in some communities, out-of-wedlock births are in the majority, homosexuality is glorified and aggressively promoted in our schools and the last taboo—adults having sex with young children—is now under attack in some of our institutions of higher learning.”

The Mattachine Society, a gay rights organization started by communist Harry Hay in 1950, cited the flawed Kinsey data in an effort to convince the public that homosexual behavior was widespread in American society.

The book, Take Back! The Gay Person’s Guide to Media Action, said the Kinsey Report on male sexuality “paved the way for the first truly positive discussion of homosexuality in the mainstream media.”

Today, this same Kinsey data is being used to convince the Supreme Court to approve homosexual “marriage” as a constitutional right.

This article was originally posted at the Accuracy in Media website.

It’s Hoosier David versus rainbow-clad Goliath.

Indiana Governor Mike Pence recently signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in a small, humble ceremony—unlike the prideful, garish, gay ceremony that former Illinois Governor Pat Quinn staged for the signing of Illinois’ marriage-deconstruction law (invited 2,300 guests, used 110 pens, imported Abraham Lincoln’s desk from Springfield for the signing, and quoted from the Gettysburg Address.)

The contrast is marked. Pence has acted humbly in the service of truth. Quinn acted pridefully in the service of lies.

In the wake of Governor Pence’s courageous act, he and Indiana have been the recipients of blistering attacks, both verbal and fiscal.

As usual when blustery homosexual activism is involved, ironies abound. Marc Benioff, CEO of San Francisco-based company Salesforce has canceled “all programs that require our customers/employees to travel to Indiana to face discrimination” (while it continues its business dealings in China—the font and source of human rights protections).

Since the Indiana law is similar to the federal RFRA law sponsored in the U.S. House by New York Democrat Chuck Shumer, passed by the U.S. Senate 97-3, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, what, pray tell, is Benioff worried about? Does he worry that during a business trip, his customers or employees will suddenly decide to order a wedding cake to be transported back to San Francisco?

John McCormack, writing on the Weekly Standard blog clarifies what RFRA will actually protect:

RFRA allows a person’s free exercise of religion to be “substantially burdened” by a law only if the law furthers a “compelling governmental interest” in the “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 

The law does not provide absolute, unfettered freedom to people of faith to do just anything they want. Nor are people of faith seeking absolute unfettered freedom to do just anything they want. This law reinforces First Amendment protections against the increasing encroachment of government impelled most often by homosexual activists.

RFRA laws would permit religious liberty to be limited only if there exists a compelling government interest in doing so and only if the burden on religious liberty is the least restrictive means of furthering that government interest. Court cases have gone both ways. Sometimes courts have decided in favor of religious liberty; sometimes they’ve ruled against it.

Indiana’s RFRA is carefully worded to protect the right of people of faith who are engaged in commerce to allow their business decisions to be informed by their faith. Christians understand what many homosexual activists and their ideological allies seem not to, which is that the totality of life should conform to biblical principles. The free exercise of religion is not limited to hearts, homes, and pews.

Governor Mike Pence has the U.S. Constitution on his side. He has court precedent on his side. He has the precedents set in 19 other states that have RFRA laws, including blue Illinois. But opposition to this law include marauding bands of hate-mongering homosexual activists, arrogant Hollywood lemmings, and feckless captains of industry.

Homosexual activists, fancying themselves the heir apparent to the great civil rights leaders, are in the vanguard of the assault on the Hoosier state.

Following close behind is Hollywood—widely known for arrogance, ignorance, immorality, vanity, and cool-crowd-following.

And then bringing up the rear with powerful reinforcements are business leaders—rarely noted for their deep thinking on matters moral, ethical, or philosophical.  With their pockets lined with lucre, they’re responding to the vitriol from homosexual activists with reflexive knee jerks that enhance their pride in their own pretense of moral courage. Does anyone believe these business leaders have thought deeply about the First Amendment, homosexuality, or marriage? One of the chief goals of business leaders is to make business decisions that increase profits, but no responsible business leader can divorce profit from principle—and by principle, I mean right principle.

What is astounding in this brouhaha is the deceit of the Left. Homosexual activists and their media sycophants continue to proclaim—without evidence—that, for example, Christians owners of wedding-related businesses are seeking to refuse to serve homosexuals. But refusing to use their gifts, labor, and time to produce a product or provide a service for a celebration that violates their religious beliefs does not constitute a refusal to serve homosexuals. In fact, the cases that have been in the press actually expose the Leftist lie, because the owners of the wedding-related businesses have, indeed, served homosexuals on multiple occasions prior to the wedding-related requests.

Religious-owners of businesses should be allowed to discriminate between types of events and products when making business-decisions regarding the provision of their goods and services. Experiencing homoerotic desire and affirming a homoerotic identity does not give men and women absolute dictatorial authority to command what kinds of events religious owners of businesses will serve or what types of products they will make. Homoerotic desire does not supersede religious liberty—or in a sane and moral universe, it would not.

Christians, Jews, and Muslims should be allowed to refuse to provide goods and services for bisexuals’, polygamists’, or polyamorists’ commitment ceremonies or in the near future, weddings (which could be construed as discrimination based on “sexual orientation.”)

Christians and Jews should be allowed to refuse to provide goods and services for pro-Hamas events (which could be construed as discrimination based on religion).

Christians should be allowed to refuse to provide goods and services for events sponsored by eugenics organizations like Planned Parenthood (which in the mad, mad, mad, mad world of feminism that sees a war on women everywhere could be construed as discrimination based on sex).

And Christians should be allowed to refuse to provide services for GLSEN events. Though dogmatic Leftist ideologues would likely construe such refusal as discrimination against homosexuals, it would, in reality, reflect the kind of business decision that Mark Benioff thinks he’s making. Refusing to provide goods and services for a GLSEN event would reflect a principled objection to the event—not the people hosting it.

Other organizations threatening to reconsider their involvement with Indiana include, Eli Lilly, Yelp, Angie’s List, the NCAA, and (irony of ironies) the Disciples of Christ denomination, which apparently supports religious discrimination.

Where do we witness courage? We are witnessing courage through the heroic actions of Mike Pence and every Hoosier who defends him and this law with unwavering steadfastness in the face of withering assaults. Another biblical allusion comes to mind. It appears the citizens of Sodom are clamoring at Lot’s door.

But we can do something.

Take ACTION:  Express with courage, boldness, and grace your support for Governor Mike Pence.

1.)  Call  his office and thank him for standing for religious liberty and freedom.   His office telephone number is (317) 232-4567.

2.)  Get on social media.  Click here to access his Facebook page.  Send this article out by Twitter, include these hashtags in your tweet:  #StandwithIndiana  and  #RFRA

3.)  Contact Eli Lilly; Yelp (415) 908-3801; Angie’s List; the NCAA at (877) 262-1492 ; and, if you’re a member, the Disciples of Christ.

4.)  Support Indiana businesses.

The Truth Project

First Annual IFI Worldview Conference
featuring Dr. Del Tackett
April 10-11, 2015

CLICK HERE for Details

Written by Anugrah Kumar

Urging Presbyterian Church USA to “repent and be restored to fellowship,” the National Black Church Initiative (NBCI), which represents 34,000 churches from 15 denominations, has declared it has severed ties with PCUSA after it amended its constitution changing their definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

“NBCI and its membership base are simply standing on the Word of God within the mind of Christ. We urge our brother and sisters of the PCUSA to repent and be restored to fellowship,” NBCI President Rev. Anthony Evans said, according to Charisma News.

“PCUSA’s manipulation represents a universal sin against the entire church and its members. With this action, PCUSA can no longer base its teachings on 2,000 years of Christian scripture and tradition, and call itself a Christian entity in the body of Christ. It has forsaken its right by this single wrong act,” added the head of the coalition, which represents 15.7 million African-Americans.

Last year, PCUSA approved a vote on an amendment to change their official definition of marriage from “a man and a woman” to “two people, traditionally a man and a woman.” And earlier this month, the proposed change to PCUSA’s Book of Order got the necessary number of presbytery votes.

“Apostle Paul warns us about this when he declared in Galatians 1:8 that there are those who will preach another gospel,” Evans said.

“No church has the right to change the Word of God. By voting to redefine marriage PCUSA automatically forfeits Christ’s saving grace,” he added. “There is always redemption in the body of Christ through confession of faith and adhering to Holy Scripture.”

Evans said PCUSA “deliberately” voted to change the Word of God and the interpretation of marriage between one man and one woman. “This is why we must break fellowship with them and urge the entire Christendom to do so as well.”

At the PCUSA General Assembly held in Detroit, Michigan, last June, a majority of delegates voted for a recommendation to amend the Book of Order regarding marriage definition.

“A proposed amendment to change the constitution to include same-gender marriages in the church’s constitution passed the General Assembly but must be ratified by a majority of the church’s 172 regional presbyteries,” explained PCUSA in a FAQ document. “Presbyteries have one year to vote on the proposed amendment. If a majority ratifies the amendment, it would take effect June 21.”

This is not the first time that PCUSA has hit the headlines on its move toward greater acceptance of homosexuality within the church.

In 2010, the PCUSA General Assembly approved a measure that allowed for presbyteries to approve the ordination of noncelibate homosexuals – after which more than 150 congregations voted to disaffiliate from the mainline denomination.

This article was originally posted on the ChristianPost.com website.

Homosexuals and their ideological allies are fond of promoting a pernicious comparison of race, which has no inherent features relative to desire or behavior, to homosexuality, which is constituted by subjective desire and immoral volitional acts.

Far better analogies for homosexuality would compare it to polyamory or consensual adult incest. In fact, even “minor attraction,” bestiality, and other paraphilias would be closer analogues than is race. They’re better analogues because those conditions too are constituted by powerful, seemingly intractable, unchosen desires and volitional acts. Though differences exist between homosexuality and these other conditions, they are minor compared to the differences between race per se and homoeroticism per se.

When comparing homosexuality to race, homosexuals, always loosey-goosey with language, don’t specify that they’re not really comparing homosexuality to race in general, but to the black race. So, in what ways is homosexuality per se like the genetic heritage of African Americans? … Well, in no ways.

Unlike homosexuality, blacks possess a genetic heritage that determines skin color and other physical features but has absolutely nothing to do with subjective feelings or volitional behavior. Homosexual scholars have long acknowledged that there is no hard science proving that homosexuality is hardwired in the same way that race is—an inconvenient truth that homosexual activists and their water-carriers in the press conceal.

Some homosexuals will acknowledge another substantive difference: They admit that “sexual orientation” is fluid—unlike race.

There are homosexuals who will admit that homosexuality per se is not akin to race per se. They will admit that homosexuality is like race only in regard to society’s mistreatment of both groups. So, to be clear, their argument is not that homosexuality per se is akin to race per se but, rather, that disapproval of homosexuality is akin to hatred of blacks.

But if you look at cultures through a broader lens, many groups have been marginalized, mistreated, and even hated.  Some groups, like blacks and Jews, have been hated because of who they are. Others, like homosexuals, have been hated because of what they do. This is not a defense of hatred directed at persons, which is never morally defensible. Rather, it is an attempt to redraw boundaries that homosexuals have tried to erase for political expedience. They have tried to erase the distinction between disapproval of types of activity and hatred of persons.

Race has no inherent behavioral components, and, therefore, disapproval of race is not only morally indefensible but also makes no sense. In contrast, homosexuality is inherently constituted by behavior that is a legitimate object of moral disapproval. Of course, same-sex attracted persons need not act on their feelings, just as those who experience other feelings that tempt them to act immorally need not act on their feelings. But the homosexuality-affirming political movement seeks to impose compulsory approval of homosexuality activity and to cast disapproval of activity as analogous to hatred of persons.

There are other groups that, like homosexuals, are constituted, not by genetics and non-behavioral conditions like skin color, but by powerful, seemingly intractable feelings, and freely chosen behaviors. And these groups have been similarly mistreated by some who believe homoerotic attraction is disordered and homoerotic activity is immoral. These groups include adulterers; bigamists; polygamists; polyamorists; “minor-attracted” persons; and those who are erotically attracted to their mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, or siblings.

In order to eradicate the marginalization, mistreatment, and hatred directed at these groups, should society present their desires, volitional acts, and relationships as normative, even good? Should we invite them into our schools to tell children how bad it feels to have their behaviors condemned? Should we solicit picture books from publishing companies that portray bigamous, polygamous, polyamorous, adulterous, and incestuous relationships as an integral part of the rainbow of family diversity? Perhaps kindergartners would learn to be more tolerant and less judgmental if they were to read a picture book about a Bonobos monkey who falls in love with his brother.

There is something that tragically connects homosexuals to blacks, but in this analogy, homosexuality is not akin to race. Rather, homosexuals correspond to racists.

Like slave-owners who bought and sold human beings like commodities, separating mothers and fathers from their children and robbing children of their birthrights, homosexuals commodify human beings by buying genetic material, intentionally separating children from their mothers or fathers thereby denying children their birthrights.

Every child has an inherent right to be raised whenever possible by a mother and father, preferably their own biological mother and father. Allowing men and women to purchase eggs and sperm for the purpose of creating intentionally motherless or fatherless children is a scandalous human rights violation.

Why is it that homosexual clothing designers Dolce and Gabbana can see what so many in society cannot and are willing to say what so many will not:

“We oppose gay adoptions. The only family is the traditional one.

“No chemical offsprings and rented uterus: life has a natural flow, there are things that should not be changed

Dolce added that procreation “must be an act of love,” saying: “You are born to a mother and a father – or at least that’s how it should be.

“I call children of chemistry, synthetic children. Rented uterus, semen chosen from a catalog.”

Gabbana added: “The family is not a fad. In it there is a supernatural sense of belonging.”

Homosexuals wax indignant about any comparisons of homosexuality to any conditions constituted by behaviors they find morally objectionable or which they realize most of society finds morally objectionable. So, they will feign offense at comparisons of race to polyamory and will actually take offense at comparisons of homosexuality to either bestiality or “intergenerational love.” Setting aside the fulminating and ironic “judgmentalism” of the homosexual crowd when it comes to analogies they don’t like, there remains the fact that no one has an obligation to accept their moral propositions as true.

The belief that homoerotic activity is moral activity is at the center of this unsettled and unsettling debate. While it is obviously not settled, homosexuals and their allies proclaim with religious fervor that their moral belief is an unassailable truth and demand it be taught as such in public schools. No dissent permitted. Book- banning enforced.

And this is when their feckless analogy comes in so handy. Anytime some tiny Toto draws back the curtain to reveal that sodomy is a morally deficient act that mars the image of God imprinted on man, homosexual wizards frantically work their levers shouting “Do you presume to criticize the Great Oz, you ungrateful racists? Pay no attention to the fabulist behind the curtain!”

Shamefully, even when conservatives see the truth, unlike Dorothy, many say nothing.

Your on-going monthly support will go directly toward influencing our Illinois culture & government with Biblical values.

You can also sign up as an IFI Sustaining Partner!

Your monthly support is important to our mission!

Written by Regis Nicoll

Back in January, Pennsylvania Governor-elect Tom Wolf tapped Dr. Rachel Levine for state physician general. Dr. Levine is a recognized expert in eating disorders with nearly 30 years of medical practice in pediatric psychology and behavioral health.

The governor stated that Dr. Levine’s knowledge and expertise is important for placing “equal emphasis on behavioral and physical health issues.” As for Levine, she says she wants to help “individuals with their myriad, complex, medical, and psychological problems.”

But there’s a glaring paradox about Levine’s selection.

You see, “Rachel” was born Richard, a male who has been transitioning to female over the last decade—or, as “she” would put it, a woman trapped in a man’s body who is becoming who she truly is.

Were it not for the fact that Dr. Levine will be setting health policy for the state, this would be little cause for concern. But Levine is a physician with a disorder caused by feelings about himself that are at odds with his body. And, whereas, he treats his anorexic patients by encouraging them to accept their bodies and change their feelings, he treats his own disorder by accepting his feelings and changing his body—a treatment fully sanctioned by the psychiatric establishment (one that no doubt contributed to his divorce in 2013 from his wife of 30 years).

While the incongruity has been lost on the therapist class, the governor, and Levine, it hasn’t on at least one of the Levine’s former patients: “Dr. Levine is sending the wrong message. . . . Since I am a diagnosed anorexic but still feel I am fat does this allow for me to continue to lose even more weight or . . . to seek out surgery to change the way I see myself?”

Who’s making it up?

At a Texas high school, gay student Coy Villasenor cried foul after being denied a run for prom queen: “I wear foundation, I fill in my eyebrows, I take care of myself how a female should. . . . I’ve had hair down to my chest for four years. I donated it. I wear tight pants. I was considered a girl. So if that wasn’t good enough for them, then I think I just think they’re making it up.”

If you believe it is the other way around—that it’s the biological male, claiming to be female, who is “making it up”—gay rights advocate Lisa Scheps wants you to know that “a person is male or female based on their personal gender identity and not on physiology or what the states decides (sic) to put on an identification card.”

Get it? Your sex is not determined by your software (DNA) and hardware (anatomy), but your feelings.

If so, the 90-pound girl who believes she is fat has no more a distorted view of herself than the teenage boy who believes he is a girl or, for that matter, the man who believes he’s a dog.

Gone are the days

I am of an age to remember when “gender” was synonymous with biological sex, and public restrooms and personal information forms reflected that physical reality. But that was then.

Today, the determinative factor in gender is not biology, but “identity.” According to the American Psychological Association, gender identity is “one’s sense of oneself as male, female, or transgender.”

In recent years, we have seen this play out with the emergence of “gender-neutral” restrooms in municipal workplaces and on over 150 college campuses across the country. Where such accommodations do not exist, there are laws or court rulings in a growing number of states requiring restroom access based on identity (feelings), not appearance (physiology).

For instance, in 2013, California enacted legislation that allows students in public schools, K-12, to choose which restrooms and locker rooms they use, irrespective of their birth gender. It shouldn’t strain the imagination to see how this will be exploited by the curious and predatory. Evidently, the physical safety of girls is less important than the fragile sensitivities of the sexually confused.

We have also witnessed what may signal the end of the male/female check box (and, possibly, the gender question altogether) for personal identification.

Last year, the social media giant Facebook enabled users to customize (yes, customize) their gender by offering over 50 categories to choose from. One from the menu of available options is “pangender,” a person who “identifies as a third gender with some combination of both male and female aspects.”

Mark Zuckerberg may have dropped out of Harvard, but he hasn’t forgotten what he learned in sex ed.

Educating “Johnny”

The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) has been a leading distributor of sex-education material for over fifty years. One of their materials, “Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education,” is a resource for educators to help K-12 school children “become sexually healthy adults.” Therein, SIECUS states that gender identity “refers to a person’s internal sense of being male, female, or a combination of these.” (Emphasis added.)

The sirens of the “new sexuality” want Johnny to know that “male” and “female” are not binary categories defined by genes and genitalia, but endpoints of a continuum defined by mood and temperament. It’s important that Johnny understand this; his maturing into a sexually healthy adult depends on it.

It’s also important that he not be alarmed should he experience a genderedness change at some time in the future. All of our self-perceptions are subject to change, SIECUS assures us, so also our sense of “being, male, female, or a combination of these.”

But Johnny also needs to know that when it comes to his sexual orientation, it “cannot be changed by therapy or medicine”; it is “one part of who [he] is.”

So, the key to becoming a sexually healthy adult is for Johnny to accept that a hardwired reality of biology (gender) is a fluid product of feelings, while a romantic feeling (sexual orientation) is a fixed, unalterable fact of life. Check.

One thing’s for sure: If Johnny wasn’t sufficiently confused by the “old” sexuality, the “new” is sure to send him, head whirling, into the eager hands of the therapist class. And should he experience gender confusion down the road, not to worry; their APA-vetted counselors are versed in “cross-sex hormones, gender reassignment surgery, and social and legal transition to the desired gender.”

Lastly, Johnny should be comforted knowing that the APA has downgraded “gender identity disorder” to “gender dysphoria.” They did this to avoid stigmatization and ensure proper treatment for any “distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning” Johnny experiences.

Testing the claims

Well, if the sirens are right, and gender is a matter of personal feelings and not physical facts, then people with gender dysphoria should experience less distress and impairment by modifying their body to suit their identity, right?

To find out, Dr. Paul McHugh, professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, chronicled the follow-up studies of transgender patients who had undergone sex-change operations.

What he learned was that adults who were sexually reconstructed continued to experience much the same problems they had before with relationships, work, and emotions.

It led Dr. McHugh to conclude that surgical reassignment “fundamentally cooperat[es] with a mental illness,” and that the best interests of patients are served by “trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia.”

More telling, and tragic, was what Dr. McHugh learned about boys born with defective genitalia who underwent sex-change operations.

Despite female genitalia, hormone injections, and being socialized as girls as prescribed by APA-vetted clinicians, most of the boys reported being trapped in the wrong body and exhibited typically male attitudes and interests.

One was a male twin raised as a girl, who, after learning of his genetic gender, went back to being a male. Eventually, the young man experienced severe depression and committed suicide.

It has been over a decade since Dr. McHugh published his findings. In the meantime, the fallacies of gender identity have gone largely unnoticed by governors, legislators, educators, physicians, and the citizens they serve.

When Dr. Levine informed the father of an anorexic daughter of his gender transition, the man shrugged, “What’s this got to do with my daughter’s care?”

It has much more to do with it than he realizes.

Originally posted at BreakPoint.com.

Your on-going monthly support will go directly toward influencing our Illinois culture and government with Biblical values.

You can also sign up as an IFI Sustaining Partner!

Your monthly support is important to our mission!

Written by Lisa Ridinger 

I suspect that many of you have listened in horror and dismay, as your child shared with you what they were being taught or exposed to in their public school. With the ever increasing depravity that is constantly being hurled at Christians, and our ever increasing marginalization, two things are clear. First, we as God’s people have become paralyzed, and second,

God’s Heart Is Being Broken

Do we care if God’s Heart is being broken?

One of the more discouraging images that plays in my mind, is seeing myself trying to bear up under a cultural torrential downpour of balls seeking to destroy me, my family, our world, and…the Gospel. For every one ball I am able to fend off, there are 20 more that follow in it’s place. These balls mock me. Calling me a “Hater!”, “Bigot!”, “Pro-life you lie, you don’t care if women die!!”, etc….  Balls that threaten to bury me under a tomb of defeat and despair.

Have you ever felt that way?

One of my biggest fears is to imagine myself, bruised and battered, stooping down to pick up one of those balls, and then just…going…home.

Do I care if God’s Heart is broken?

Do you?

Some would justifiably argue that the moral decline of our schools began in the 1960’s as a result of two landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions: Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), where state-sponsored prayer was prohibited in our public schools. While these decisions were disastrous, I would argue that what was even more disastrous was the silence of God’s people. As my friend Jacquie would say, “All you could hear were the crickets, crickets, crickets…”

Do I care if God’s Heart is broken?

Do you?

Although it may appear that I am taking a circuitous route in discussing the issue at hand, comprehensive sex-ed, the fact of the matter is I can offer you a “what to do/what not to do” list when approaching your school, and I will in the future, but this list will be meaningless if we remain paralysed in our chairs, in our schools, in our communities, and in our fear….

Do we care if God’s Heart is broken?

One of my best-loved quotes is by MLK Jr., and is especially sobering, given the persecution and martyrdom of our fellow believers in Christ throughout the world:

“You may be 38 years old, as I happen to be. And one day, some great opportunity stands before you and calls you to stand up for some great principle, some great issue…. And you refuse to do so because you are afraid…. You refuse to do it because you want to live longer… You’re afraid that you will lose your job, or you are afraid that you will be criticized or that you will lose your popularity, or you’re afraid that somebody will stab you, or shoot at you or bomb your house; so you refuse to take the stand. Well, you may go on and live until you are 90, but you’re just as dead at 38 as you would be at 90. And the cessation of breathing in your life is but the belated announcement of an earlier death of the spirit.”

Do I care if God’s Heart is broken?

Do you?

Imagine your wife or girlfriend, or your 16-year-old daughter, granddaughter, niece, or sister is changing into her gym clothes in a Planet Fitness women’s locker room and in walks “Carlotta” Sklodowska, the man at the swirling center of the controversy:

My intent is not to mock this clearly disturbed man. My hope is that the truth of this offense, which is exposed in the photo and comments, may viscerally affect people and motivate them to do more than tsk tsk to their likeminded friends. If not, this will come to every restroom, locker room, and dressing room, including those in our elementary schools.

**Caution:  Offensive Content: Click HERE to read Sklodowska’s comments.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to Planet Fitness to let them know how absurd their policies are.  You can also call customer relations at (603) 750-0001.

The Truth Project

First Annual IFI Worldview Conference
featuring Dr. Del Tackett
April 10-11, 2015

CLICK HERE for Details